Auditing process and ignoring science

I was led to this report after reading a post by Kari Chisholm on the BlueOregon blog. The post describes the political battle that occurred over a nomination to the Department of the Interior and a hold put on that nomination by Senator Ron Wyden who asked for a report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). A year later in mid-December 2008 the report was issued. While the politics were interesting; from an auditor's perspective I found the methodology used to complete the investigation just as interesting.

Many times in audits, we struggle with how to audit something that is less than concrete. This audit reminds me how that is done-through the elements of a finding. The objective of the investigation was to determine if endangered species decisions had been improperly influenced by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Criteria: The methodology was to see if policies and procedures were followed. The OIG reviewed 20 Endangered Species Act decisions. The OIG conducted 89 interviews with employees and reviewed over 20,000 emails and other documents and sent out a standardized questionnaire to all of the US Fish and Wildlife Services regions.

Condition: The investigation found a policy void and lack of guidance. One interviewee stated that there was way too much "informal policy" and that he would wake up in the morning and think, "Okay, what's the agency doing today?" The investigation also noted that this intentional failure to clarify policy had been ongoing through several administrations in order to allow the policy du jour.

Effect: As a result, the Deputy Assistant Secretary in this current administration was able to influence decisions and steer the best available science to pre-ordained ends. She caused significant harm to the integrity of the decision-making process and and its reputation with state and local agencies. The report also stated that there will be considerable cost in undoing some of the decisions and that the actions also caused considerable expenditure in taxpayer dollars for litigation.